|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 253)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
That picture has been so thoroughly debunked.
Come back when you have real pictures of the real Pentagon. |
lol, touche. I actually questioned the material after I posted it, but would rather leave it there, as it was said. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Honestly, you don't know what Newton's Second Law states here. The mass of the body of the plane is far, far greater than the mass of the wings. That should be your first hint at why a 37 foot wide object only created a 65 foot wide hole. The velocity and mass of the wings were not sufficient enough force to punch a similar hole in the side of the building as the body of the plane was.
Why is it that you think the plane's mass was borne equally by the wing and the body? The amount of force the clipped-off wing was able to exert was minimal in comparison to the amount of resistance brought to bear by the reinforced walls. |
So why isn't there two 100 foot wings any where to be seen? WHERE IS THE MASSIVE ING JET LEBOWSKI? :stongue: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
So why isn't there two 100 foot wings any where to be seen? WHERE IS THE MASSIVE ING JET LEBOWSKI? :stongue: |
That depends - when was your picture taken? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
lol, touche. I actually questioned the material after I posted it, but would rather leave it there, as it was said. |
This is one of the reasons people don't take any of your stuff seriously - you blindly post fact with bull so willingly that it's a tremendous task just to separate it sometimes. You do your own position a tremendous disservice everytime you discredit it like this. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
This is one of the reasons people don't take any of your stuff seriously - you blindly post fact with bull so willingly that it's a tremendous task just to separate it sometimes. You do your own position a tremendous disservice everytime you discredit it like this. |
What do you mean? I've demonstrated quite clearly in the past my views on the whole situation. No one has been able to debunk anything that I have stated, I've only received dodgy, character questioning replies, that indicate that no one wants to take this seriously until someone makes a mistake.
Find me a plane in this picture. I'm getting tired of rhetorical bull.
 |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| I see unbroken windows. I don't see a plane. I see a few isolated fires, but no raging inferno that incinerated a plane. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
[
Note that the center of the impact hole in this photo taken soon after the crash is right above the standing cable spool on the left. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
No one can seem to get it through their head that Pandora's Black Box clearly indicates that the Official Story is lying yet again?
Because you're agents. :gsmile: |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
That's a 747, but if you want to use that wing span of 211 ft and compare it to the 65 ft wide gap in the Pentagon...I don't expect you to understand. Naturally you avoided all confrontation of me disproving your use of Newton's Second. ;)
 |
Speaking of Newtonian physics.....
Fuel load of a 727 around 18 metric tonnes.
Gross takeoff weight of a 727 85 to 100 tonnes
The majority of that mass is located in the fuselage
Lets say for arguments sake that the total mass of each fueled wing would be 15 metric tonnes (which may be a stretch). With that assumption you now have 70% of the total impulse force generated by the momentum of the aircraft acting through the centroid of the fuselage which i would argue is far more ridged than the wing by design. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
No one can seem to get it through their head that Pandora's Black Box clearly indicates that the Official Story is lying yet again?
Because you're agents. :gsmile: |
And again, you discredit yourself.
Read colonelcrisp's post - he more eloquently explained the physics I tried to earlier. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
I quickly move on? I destroyed you. The hole in the Pentagon does not fit a Boeing 757, the black box does not match the official story, the bodies look fake - there is no identification of the bodies, there is no plane except for a pittance's worth, and you're telling me I'm full of bull? Aluminum doesn't destroy concrete, laddy, no matter what sort of names you call me. |
i have a reasonable vocabulary but i am lost for words to describe what a ing idiot you are. i can't believe you losers are wasting your life away with this . |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | i can't believe you losers are wasting your life away with this . |
Funny, I could say that with how much time you waste on covering up the official story on this forum. |
|
|
|
|
